Anglican  Orders 
Are  Not  Valid 


New  York 

THE  PAULIST  PRESS 
120  West  60th  Street 


CoPYRrGHT,  1922,  BY  “The  Missionary  Society  of 
St.  Paul  the  Apostle  in  the  State 
OF  New  York.” 


'ZG:i.n 

f 2-5” 

Why  Anglican  Orders  Are  Not  Valid 

BY  A PAULIST  FATHER. 

T is  sufficiently  evident  that  no  good 
comes  directly  from  controversy. 
This  is  true  especially  of  religious 
controversy.  In  religious  controversy, 
one  comes  to  feel  that  the  religious 
element  grows  smaller  and  smaller,  and  the  con- 
troversial elements  grow  larger  and  larger.  The 
outcome  seems  too  often  to  be  a sort  of  “holy  war” 
which  the  verbal  warriors  enjoy.  Frequently,  the 
result  seems  to  be  the  manifestation  of  an  unkind 
spirit  which  persists  long  after  the  disputed  point 
has  faded  from  the  consciousness  of  the  disputants. 
Persons  who  indulge  in  religious  controversy  are 
likely  to  feel  that  their  opponent  is  a perverse  fool 
or  foolishly  perverse,  and  each  concludes  that  the 
other  is  intentionally  stupid. 

The  writer  of  this  pamphlet  has  no  interest  in 
controversy.  It  is  not  controversial.  Anyone  who 
thinks  to  find  in  it  a word  which  offends  against 
that  aspect  of  charity  which  we  know  as  courtesy, 
will  misread  wholly  the  purpose  of  the  writer. 
What  follows  is  an  attempt  to  state  as  concisely  as 


WHY  ANGLICAN  ORDERS  ARE  NOT  VALID 


possible,  in  a bare  outline,  tbe  reasons  why  the 
Catholic  Church  considers  Anglican  orders  invalid. 

It  may  not  be  beside  the  point  to  say  that  the 
writer  knows  a number  of  Anglicans  whose  good 
faith  he  respects,  and  whose  honest  search  for  truth 
he  honors.  These  persons  occupy  a position  which 
is  trying.  Their  cheerful  effort  to  deal  with  the  in- 
superable difficulties  involved  in  the  “Anglican 
Position”  are  ample  proof  of  their  entire  sincerity. 
There  are  persons  in  the  Anglican  Church,  both 
clergymen  and  laymen,  who  are  fully  convinced 
that  Anglican  clergymen  are  priests — in  the  Cath- 
olic sense  of  the  word.  In  other  words,  they  be- 
lieve that  Anglican  ministers  have  power  to  offer 
the  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  and  to  give  absolution 
from  sin.  Moreover,  they  think  that  such  clergy- 
men speak  with  the  authority  promised  by  Our 
Lord  to  His  Apostles  and  their  successors. 

The  lives  of  such  persons  is  the  best  and  most 
immediate  demonstration  of  their  devotion  to  what 
they  believe  is  truth.  In  addition  to  this,  they  are 
convinced  by  what  seems  to  them  to  be  the  ob- 
vious operation  of  sacramental  grace,  that  their 
orders  are  valid.  Some  of  these  persons  go  even 
so  far  as  to  deplore  the  fact  that  they  are  not  in 
communion  with  the  Apostolic  See.  Of  course,  it 
is  only  fair  to  say  that  the  teaching  of  these  men 
by  no  means  represents  the  belief  of  the  majority 
of  Anglicans.  If  one  can  say  that  the  Anglican 

4 


WHY  ANGLICAN  ORDERS  ARE  NOT  VALID 


body  has  an  official  teaching  in  the  matter,  it  is 
that  the  function  of  a Christian  minister  is  rather 
prophetic  than  priestly. 

It  is  to  those  who  believe  that  the  Anglican  clergy 
are  priests — to  those  clergymen  and  laymen  who 
hold  what  are  called  “advanced”  ideas,  and  are 
known  popularly,  or  unpopularly,  as  “High 
Churchmen” — that  the  matter  of  this  paper  is 
directed.  The  writer  will  be  repaid'if  he  succeeds 
in  recalling  very  simply  the  point  at  issue  in  the 
matter  of  the  fact  that  the  Catholic  Church  has  de- 
clared Anglican  orders  to  be  invalid.  It  has  noth- 
ing whatever  to  do  with  personal  feeling.  It  is  not 
an  argument.  The  writer  assumes  the  good  faith 
of  his  separated  brethren,  and  desires  only  to  re- 
mind them  of  the  mutual  benefits  which  can  be  de- 
rived from  the  exercise  of  charity  in  all  our 
thought. 

Some  words  of  Pope  Leo  XIII.  sum  up  the  matter 
so  well,  that  we  cannot  do  better  than  to  quote 
them.  In  the  course  of  His  Encyclical  on  Anglican 
Orders,  the  Holy  Father  says:  “It  remains  for  Us 

to  say  that  even  as  we  have  entered  upon  the 
elucidation  of  this  grave  question  in  the  name  of 
and  in  the  love  of  the  Great  Shepherd,  in  the  same 
We  appeal  to  those  who  desire  and  seek  with  a 
sincere  heart  the  possession  of  a hierarchy  and  of 
orders.  Perhaps  until  now,  aiming  at  the  greater 
perfection  of  Christian  virtue,  and  searching  more 

5 


WHY  ANGLICAN  ORDERS  ARE  NOT  VALID 

devoutly  the  divine  Scriptures,  and  redoubling  the 
fervor  of  their  prayers,  they  have,  nevertheless, 
hesitated  in  doubt  and  anxiety  to  follow  the  Voice 
of  Christ,  which  has  so  long  interiorly  admonished 
them.  Now  they  see  clearly  whither  He,  in  His 
goodness,  invites  them  and  wills  them  to  come.  In 
returning  to  His  one  only  fold,  they  will  obtain  the 
blessings  which  they  seek,  and  the  consequent  helps 
to  salvation  of  which  He  has  made  the  Church  the 
dispenser,  and,  as  it  were,  the  constant  guardian 
and  promoter  of  His  Redemption  amongst  the  na- 
tions. Then  indeed  ‘they  shall  draw  waters  in  joy 
from  the  fountains  of  the  Saviour,’  His  wondrous 
Sacraments  whereby  His  faithful  souls  have  their 
sins  truly  remitted,  and  are  restored  to  the  friend- 
ship of  God,  are  nourished  and  strengthened  by 
the  Heavenly  Bread,  and  abound  with  the  most 
powerful  aids  for  their  eternal  salvation.  May  the 
God  of  Peace,  the  God  of  all  consolation,  in  His 
infinite  tenderness,  enrich  and  fill  with  all  these 
blessings  those  who  truly  yearn  for  them.  We 
wish  to  direct  Our  exhortation  and  Our  desires  in  a 
special  way  to  those  who  are  ministers  of  religion 
in  their  respective  communities.  They  are  men 
who  from  their  very  office  take  precedence  in 
learning  and  authority,  and  who  have  at  heart  the 
glory  of  God  and  the  salvation  of  souls.  Let  them 
be  the  first  in  joyfully  submitting  to  the  divine  call, 
and  obey  it,  and  furnish  a glorious  example  to 

6 


WHY  ANGLICAN  ORDERS  ARE  NOT  VALID 


others.  Assuredly,  with  an  exceeding  great  joy 
their  Mother  the  Church  will  welcome  them,  and 
will  cherish  with  all  her  love  and  care  those  whom 
the  strength  of  their  generous  souls  has,  amid  many 
trials  and  difficulties,  led  back  to  her  bosom.  Nor 
could  words  express  the  recognition  which  this  de- 
voted courage  will  win  for  them  from  the  assem- 
blies of  the  brethren  throughout  the  Catholic  world, 
or  what  hope  or  confidence  it  will  merit  for  them 
before  Christ  as  their  Judge,  or  what  reward  it  will 
obtain  from  Him  in  the  Heavenly  Kingdom!  And 
We  Ourselves,  in  every  lawful  way,  shall  continue 
to  promote  their  reconciliation  with  the  Church  in 
which  individuals  and  masses,  as  We  ardently  de- 
sire, may  find  so  much  for  their  imitation.  In  the 
meantime,  hy  the  tender  mercy  of  the  Lord  our 
God,  We  ask  and  beseech  all  faithfully  to  follow 
in  the  open  path  of  divine  grace  and  truth. 

That  a Sacrament  was  instituted  for  the  purpose 
of  transmitting  the  power  of  orders  is  admitted  by 
Anglicans  of  the  High  Church  school  of  thought, 
although  there  is  some  dispute  among  them  as  to 
just  what  the  power  is.  Also,  they  differ  as  to 
what  is  essential  to  the  form  and  matter  of  the 
rite;  but  they  are  agreed  as  to  its  existence.  The 
“Article  of  Religion”  which  deals  with  the  ques- 
tion says:  “There  are  two  Sacraments  ordained 

iTTie  Great  Encyclical  Letters  of  Leo  XIIL,  Benziger  Brothers,  pp. 
405,  406. 


7 


WHY  ANGLICAN  ORDERS  ARE  NOT  VALID 


of  Christ  Our  Lord  in  the  Gospel,  that  is  to  say, 
Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord.  Those  five 
commonly  called  Sacraments,  that  is  to  say.  Con- 
firmation, Penance,  Orders,  Matrimony  and  Ex- 
treme Unction,  are  not  to  be  counted  for  Sacra- 
ments of  the  Gospel,  being  such  as  have  grown 
partly  of  the  corrupt  following  of  the  Apostles, 
partly  as  states  of  life  allowed  in  the  Scriptures; 
but  yet  have  not  like  nature  of  Sacraments  with 
Baptism  and  the  Lord’s  Supper,  for  that  they  have 
not  any  visible  sign  or  ceremony  ordained  of  God.”* 

It  seems  difticult  for  those  who  believe  that  the 
purpose  of  language  is  to  share  thought  to  inter- 
pret these  words  in  any  sense  which  will  admit  of 
a “Catholic  Interpretation.”  The  High  Church  An- 
glicans say  that  the  Articles  are  not  doctrinal  state- 
ments, at  least  that  they  have  no  binding  authority; 
but  here,  if  anywhere,  we  find  the  nearest  approxi- 
mation to  an  authoritative  declaration.  If  the 
words  have  not  binding  force,  at  least  they  serve 
to  show  the  intention  which  underlay  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  Anglican  rite  of  ordination. 

Very  briefly,  the  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church 
with  regard  to  the  Sacraments  of  Holy  Orders  is 
as  follows:  “A  Sacrament  of  the  New  Law  is  a 

sensible  sign,  permanently  instituted  by  Christ,  for 
the  purpose  of  signifying  and  conferring  grace;  or, 
more  briefly,  an  efficacious  sign  of  grace,  divinely 

2Article  XXV.,  “Of  the  Sacraments.” 

8 


WHY  ANGLICAN  ORDERS  ARE  NOT  VALID 


instituted.  Now,  three  things  are  required  for  a 
Sacrament  of  the  New  Law:  [that  it  he]  a sensible 
sign,  productive  of  grace,  permanently  instituted  by 
Christ.”®  This  applies  to  all  the  Sacraments.  That 
the  Church  teaches  that  Orders  is  a Sacrament  is 
shown  by  the  pronouncement  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  Sess.  XXIII.,  can.  3,  Denz.-Bann.,  963  (840), 
where  we  read:  “If  anyone  say  that  Order,  or 

sacred  Ordination,  is  not  truly  and  properly  a Sac- 
rament, instituted  by  Christ  the  Lord,  or  that  it  is 
a kind  of  human  invention,  thought  out  by  men 
skilled  in  ecclesiastical  matters,  or  that  it  is  only  a 
kind  of  rite  for  selecting  ministers  of  God’s  Word 
and  the  Sacraments,  let  him  he  anathema.” 

Now  any  Sacrament  has  two  parts,  the  matter 
and  the  form.  The  matter  is  the  sensible  sign,  and 
the  form  is  the  prayer  or  prayers  which  state  in 
words  the  application  of  the  Sacrament  to  the  pur- 
pose for  which  it  was  instituted. 

Regarding  the  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church  in 
the  matter  of  Order,  the  quotations  given  above 
suffice  to  show  the  definiteness  of  that  teaching, 
and  to  point  out  the  unvarying  doctrine  of  the 
Church. 

It  may  be  asked  what  the  Church’s  doctrine  con- 
cerning the  essential  constituents  of  the  form  and 
matter  are,  and  to  answer  that  question,  a quota- 

sTract  X.,  De  Sacrameiitis,  Synopsis  Theol.  Dogmat.,  by  A.  Tan- 
querey;  pub.,  Desclee  et  Socii. 


9 


WHY  ANGLICAN  ORDERS  ARE  NOT  VALID 

lion  from  Tanquerey  will  best  serve  our  purpose: 
“In  Scripture,  no  other  matter  of  Order  is  desig- 
nated except  the  imposition  of  hands.  During  the 
first  nine  centuries,  no  other  matter  was  used  in 
either  Church  (Western  and  Eastern).  From  the 
tenth  century,  tradition  of  the  instruments,  that  is 
to  say  of  a chalice  and  paten  for  priests,  and  the 
tradition  of  the  Book  of  the  Gospels  for  deacons, 
has  been  used  in  the  Latin  Church,  but  not  in  the 
Greek  Church.  From  this  arises  the  question  what 
is  essential  matter.  There  are  three  chief  opin- 
ions : many  modern  men,  after  the  time  of  St.  Bona- 
venture,  teach  that  only  the  imposition  of  hands  is 
the  essential  matter  of  the  Sacrament  (of  Order), 
saying  that  the  tradition  of  the  instruments  is  only 
an  ecclesiastical  rite,  which  was  introduced  in  the 
tenth  century  for  the  purpose  of  designating  more 
clearly  the  power  conferred  in  ordination.  Many 
Thomists  and  some  others  think  that  the  tradition 
of  the  instruments  only  is  the  essential  matter,  on 
account  of  the  authority  of  the  Decree  to  the  Ar- 
menians, where  it  is  said : ‘The  sixth  Sacrament  is 

(that)  of  Order,  the  matter  of  which  is  that  (thing) 
by  means  of  the  tradition  of  which  the  Order  is 
conferred,  just  as  the  priesthood  is  given  by  means 
of  the  tradition  of  a chalice  with  wine,  and  of  a 
paten  with  bread.’  However,  those  who  do  not  ac- 
cept this  view  answer  that  here  the  question  con- 
cerns itself  only  with  the  complete  and  accessory 

10 


WHY  ANGLICAN  ORDERS  ARE  NOT  VALID 


matter,  which  the  Holy  Father  wished  to  be  added 
to  the  imposition  of  hands,  already  used  by  the  Ar- 
menians. Others,  with  Bellarmine  and  Lugo,  hold 
that  the  imposition  of  hands  and  the  tradition  of 
the  instruments  are  the  essential  matter.  For,  the 
former  is  required  by  Sacred  Scripture,  and  the 
latter  is  shown  to  be  necessary  from  the  Decree  to 
the  Armenians.  The  conclusion  is  that  the  first 
opinion,  relying  as  it  does  on  historical  fact,  is 
much  more  probable.  The  second  (opinion)  now 
seems  hardly  probable.  The  third  cannot  be  ad- 
mitted unless  at  the  same  time  the  fact  is  acknowl- 
edged that  God  has  left  to  the  Church  the  power  of 
determining,  in  specie,  the  matter  of  the  Sacra- 
ments which  He  instituted  only  in  genere.”* 

In  Sess.  XXIII.,  can.  VI.,  of  the  Canons  and  De- 
crees of  the  Council  of  Trent,  we  find  the  state- 
ment: “If  anyone  saith  that  in  the  Catholic 

Church  there  is  not  a hierarchy  by  divine  institu- 
tion instituted,  consisting  of  bishops,  priests  and 
ministers;  let  him  be  anathema.”  From  this 
Canon,  we  see  that  the  Church  makes  a distinction 
in  the  orders  of  the  hierarchy.  It  consists  of  bish- 
ops, priests,  deacons,  subdeacons,  the  four  minor 
orders,  and  clerical  tonsure.  In  the  ordination  of 
subdeacons,  candidates  for  the  minor  orders,  and 
those  who  receive  the  clerical  tonsure,  there  is  no 

4A.  Tanquerey,  Synopsis  Theol.  Dogmat.,  Tract.  X.,  Cap.  VII.,  Art.  I. 


11 


WHY  ANGLICAN  ORDERS  ARE  NOT  VALID 


imposition  of  hands;  consequently,  we  are  not  here 
concerned  with  these  orders,  hut  only  with  the  epis- 
copate, the  priesthood  and  the  diaconate.  In  the 
Eastern  Church,  the  teaching  regarding  Orders  is 
that  the  Imposition  of  Hands,  alone,  constitutes  the 
full  matter  of  the  Sacrament.  The  Western  Church 
teaches  that  in  addition  to  the  Imposition  of  Hands, 
the  delivery  of  the  Instruments  also  constitutes  an 
important  part  of  the  ordination  ceremony. 
Whether  the  delivery  of  the  Instruments  is  essen- 
tial to  the  validity  of  Order  was  long  disputed. 
The  safest  conclusions  seems  to  be  that,  while  the 
Imposition  of  Hands  is  the  essence  of  the  matter 
of  Order,  the  Church  has  thought  best  to  insist  that 
the  delivery  of  the  Instruments  should  accompany 
the  Imposition  of  Hands,  in  order  that  the  safer 
part  may  be  followed,  and  any  possibility  of  doubt 
be  excluded.  In  addition  to  the  matter  of  the 
Sacrament,  there  is  also  the  form  to  be  considered. 
This  is  the  prayer  or  prayers  and  the  other  words 
used  at  the  time  of  conferring  the  Sacrament, 
which  state  the  power  which  is  given.  The  matter 
and  the  form  are  both  equally  necessary  to  the 
valid  susception  of  Order. 

Both  matter  and  form  were  instituted  by  Christ, 
but  in  the  case  of  the  delivery,  of  the  Instruments, 
the  Church  has  deemed  it  the  “tutior  pars”  which 
must  always  be  followed  in  the  administration  of 
the  Sacraments.  For  this  reason,  the  Church  car- 

12 


WHY  ANGLICAN  ORDERS  ARE  NOT  VALID 


ries  out  the  ceremony  of  the  delivery  of  the  Instru- 
ments.® 

To  sum  up  the  matter,  we  may  say  that  the  mat- 
ter and  form  of  the  Sacraments  were  instituted  by 
Christ,  and  that  where  anything  has  been  added  in 
the  form,  the  Church  has  thought  best  to  add  it 
for  the  sake  of  making  sure  that  no  shade  of  doubt 
may  be  cast  on  the  integrity  of  the  Sacrament  by 
a failure  to  state  with  necessary  definiteness  of  ex- 
pression the  purpose  of  the  Sacrament. 

The  High  Church  Anglican  position  with  regard 
to  the  matter  of  Order  is  that  the  Imposition  of 
Hands  is  the  essential  matter,  and  the  form  is 
thought  to  be  sufficient  as  it  is  found  in  the  present 
Prayer  Book. 

The  first  point  is  that  in  rejecting  the  delivery  of 
the  Instruments,  doubt  is  cast  on  the  integrity  of 
the  rite,  since  the  Catholic  Church  teaches  that  the 
delivery  of  the  Instruments  is  the  “safer  part,”  and 
the  form  used  at  present  is  not  the  one  which  was 
used  for  many  Anglican  Ordinations  in  the  begin- 
ning. These  points  will  be  mentioned  again. 

But  in  addition  to  the  proper  matter  and  form, 
the  Church  teaches  that  the  one  who  is  conferring 
the  Sacrament  must  have  a proper  intention,  that 
is,  he  must  intend  to  do  what  the  Church  intends  to 
do  in  the  sacrament  under  consideration.  “If  any- 

5See  Pohle-Preuss,  "The  Sacraments,”  vol.  iv.,  part  ii.,  chapter  i.* 
section  2,  pp.  62-71. 


13 


WHY  ANGLICAN  ORDERS  ARE  NOT  VALID 


one  say  that  an  intention  at  least  of  doing  what  the 
Church  does,  is  not  required  in  ministers  while 
they  are  making  and  conferring  sacraments,  let 
him  be  anathema.”® 

Intention  is  defined  as  an  “act  by  which  the  will 
tends  freely  towards  any  end.”  Now  the  Church 
has  defined  the  intention  necessary  for  the  celebra- 
tion of  any  sacrament,  saying  that  it  is  required 
that  he  who  celebrates  any  sacrament  must  have  at 
least  a virtual  intention  of  making  the  sacrament. 
This  is  another  way  of  saying  that  he  who  would 
make  any  sacrament  must  intend  to  do  what  the 
Church  intends  to  do  in  that  case.  “For  the  valid- 
ity of  a sacrament  a virtual  intention  in  the  min- 
ister is  required  and  sufiices.”’^  We  see,  then,  that, 
according  to  Catholic  teaching,  the  one  who  con- 
fers a sacrament  must  have  the  power  to  do  so. 
This  power  involves  the  possession  of  valid  orders, 
the  jurisdiction  which  gives  one  the  right  to  use 
the  orders.  The  matter  and  form  of  the  sacrament 
must  be  intact,  and  the  minister  must  intend  to  do 
what  the  Church  intends  to  do. 

If  the  writer  is  not  mistaken,  the  Anglican  teach- 
ing, at  least  that  of  the  High  Church  party,  is  that 
the  orders  in  the  Anglican  Church  at  present  are 
the  same  as  those  which  were  in  the  Church  in 
England  before  the  time  known  as  the  Reforma- 

6 Sess.  VII.,  can.  ii.,  Denz-Bann.,  854  (735). 

7A.  Tanquerey,  Synopsis  Theol.  Dogmat.,  Tract.  X.,  Cap.  I.,  Art.  III. 

14 


WHY  ANGLICAN  ORDERS  ARE  NOT  VALID 


tion.  Anglicans  of  this  High  Church  school  believe 
that  there  was  no  change  in  the  essential  character 
of  Orders  in  the  English  Church  after  the  separa- 
tion from  Rome.  Many  of  these  Anglicans  quote 
a statement  which  asserts  that  the  English  Church 
before  and  after  the  Reformation  is  one  and  the 
same  Church.  They  say  that  whatever  may  have 
been  the  internal  intention  of  the  first  bishops  in 
the  Church  of  England,  these  men  who  gave  orders 
to  the  post-Reformation  Anglican  bishops  had  an 
adequate  official  intention,  so  to  call  it,  that  is  to 
say  their  external  intention  w^as  to  do  what  the 
Church  had  always  done,  in  conferring  Anglican 
orders. 

The  ground  on  which  the  Catholic  Church  denies 
the  validity  of  Anglican  orders  is  rather  theological 
than  historical.  That  the  Anglican  Church  has  a 
self-created  succession  of  Anglican  orders  is  not 
denied  by  the  Churcli.  That  there  has  been  a line 
of  men  who  have  been  consecrated  in  conformity 
with  the  provisions  of  the  Anglican  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer,  and  that  this  line  of  men  is  unbroken 
from  a time  including  and  succeeding  the  Reforma- 
tion is  not  controverted.  The  point  at  issue  is  this : 
Did  the  men  who  ordained  Dr.  Matthew  Parker 
have  valid  orders?  Did  they  intend  to  convey  and 
confer  Catholic  Order?  Was  the  matter  of  the 
Sacrament  that  which  is  required  by  the  Catholic 
Church?  Was  the  form  used,  the  Catholic  form? 

15 


WHY  ANGLICAN  ORDERS  ARE  NOT  VALID 


Regarding  the  first  question,  it  must  be  said  that 
the  matter  of  the  orders  of  Parker’s  consecrators 
is  shrouded  in  an  impenetrable  obscurity.  One  of 
the  co-consecrators  is  said  to  have  been  ordained 
priest  and  consecrated  bishop  according  to  the 
Catholic  rite.  This,  if  proved,  would  not  clear  up 
much,  for  the  co-consecrators  are  not,  speaking 
strictly,  the  ministers  in  conferring  Order.  Even  if 
the  consecrator  and  the  co-consecrators  were  true 
bishops,  they  lacked  jurisdiction. 

Moreover,  the  question  of  the  matter  and  form 
used  in  the  consecration  of  Dr.  Parker  gives  rise 
to  grave  difficulties.  However  the  accessories  of 
the  form  used  in  the  Catholic  Church  have  varied, 
the  essential  form  has  always  been  such  as  to  show 
clearly  the  direct  intention  of  conferring  the  order 
in  which  the  form  occurs,  and  for  which  it  exists. 
In  the  case  of  the  form  used  in  the  consecration  of 
bishops  and  the  ordination  of  priests,  the  order  to 
be  conferred  has  always  been  mentioned  with  such 
specific  details,  and  the  powers  granted  for  the  per- 
formance of  the  functions  proper  to  the  order  have 
been  stated  so  plainly  that  no  doubt  has  ever  ex- 
isted as  to  the  purpose  of  the  ceremony.  Now,  in 
the  form  used  in  the  post-Reformation  Church  of 
England,  the  form  was  made  vague  intentionally 
in  order  to  hold  as  many  former  Catholics  as  pos- 
sible, by  insisting  on  the  nationalistic  character  of 
the  Church  of  England,  and  at  the  same  time  an 

16 


WHY  ANGLICAN  ORDERS  ARE  NOT  VALID 

effort  was  made  to  render  the  form  sufficiently 
ambiguous  and  elastic  to  avoid  giving  pain  to  those 
who  were  influenced  largely  by  the  new  doctrines 
which  had  been  brought  from  the  Continent.  The 
result  was  that  the  form  used  in  the  Prayer  Book 
of  Edward  VI.  was  altered  and  made  less  Catholic 
in  the  next  Prayer  Book.  Later,  mention  of  the 
purpose  of  giving  the  newly-ordained  priest  power 
to  offer  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass  for  the  living  and 
the  dead  was  omitted.  Instead  of  giving  the  In- 
struments which  accompany  and  form  a part  of 
the  Catholic  rite,  the  bishop  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land delivered  a Bible.  In  the  following  editions 
of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  the  form  was 
changed  still  more  in  order  to  secure  the  approval 
of  the  Genevan  divines  who  were  acquiring  more 
and  more  power  in  the  administration  of  affairs  in 
the  new  Church  of  England.  The  form  and  matter 
were  finally  changed  so  much  as  to  render  the 
validity  of  the  rite  very  dubious,  to  say  the  best 
of  it. 

The  long  controversy  which  resulted  may  be 
summed  up  thus:  “The  decision  against  the  valid- 
ity of  these  orders  (Anglican)  rests,  not  on  the  his- 
toric fact  that  William  Barlow,  who  consecrated 
Dr.  Matthew  Parker,  the  first  Anglican  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  at  Lambeth,  on  December 
7,  1559,  was  not  a validly  consecrated  bishop,  but 
on  the  dogmatic  fact  that  the  Edwardine  rite  of 

17 


WHY  ANGLICAN  ORDERS  ARE  NOT  VALID 


ordination,  drawn  up  in  1549,  had  purposely 
altered  the  sacramental  form  of  Holy  Orders,  so 
as  to  exclude  the-  intention  of  bestowing  the  power 
of  consecration  and  absolution.  This  perversion, 
together  with  the  manifest  lack  of  a proper  inten- 
tion, deprives  the  rite  of  its  sacramental  effect.  Tt 
is  clear,’  says  St.  Thomas,  ‘that  if  any  substantial 
part  of  the  sacramental  form  be  suppressed,  the 
essential  sense  of  the  words  is  destroyed,  and 
consequently  the  sacrament  becomes  invalid.’® 
This  principle  explains  the  custom  existing  long 
before  the  Leonine  decision  (practically  since 
1540)  of  conditionally  reordaining  converted  An- 
glican clergymen.  The  orders  conferred  under  the 
Edwardine  ordinal  were  declared  null  and  void  by 
Paul  VI.  as  early  as  1555.”® 

Father  H.  Hurter,  S.J.,  sums  up  the  matter  thus: 
“But  if  even  up  to  our  day  there  was  a matter  of 
controversy  concerning  the  validity  of  Anglican 
ordinations,  the  reason  was  not  a doubt  concern- 
ing the  thesis  whether  the  ordinations  of  heretics 
are  valid,  but  the  very  grave  doubts  concerning  the 
valid  ordination  of  the  first  bishop,  Parker,  on 
whom  the  ordination  of  the  remaining  bishops  de- 
pends; and  concerning  the  sufficiency  of  the  inten- 
tion in  the  ministers  of  the  ordinations:  for  since 
they  deny  both  the  sacrament  of  Order  itself,  the 

sSumma  Theol.^  III.,  qu.  00,  Art.  8. 
oPohle-Preuss,  Dogmat.  Theol.^  ‘*The  Sacraments,”  vol.  iv.,  p.  71. 

18 


WHY  ANGLICAN  ORDERS  ARE  NOT  VALID 

power  of  sacrificing,  and  the  sacerdotal  character, 
and  to  this  end  changed  the  rite,  one  can  hardly 
say  that  in  ordaining  ministers  of  the  Church,  they 
intended  to  do  that  which  the  Church  does.  But 
besides  these  reasons,  there  are  the  gravest  doubts 
regarding  the  sufficiency  of  the  form  used  in  An- 
glican ordinations.  This  form  is  sufficiently  equiv- 
ocal, after  the  change  which  was  made  in  it,  that 
it  can  be  said  to  designate  true  sacerdotal  power. 
Whence  it  comes  about,  that  from  the  year  1554, 
the  unvarying  practice  has  obtained  in  the  Church 
of  considering  the  ordinations  of  these  men  (An- 
glicans) as  invalid.  In  our  time,  Leo  XIII.  did 
away  with  the  theoretical  controversy  very  defi- 
nitely in  a Bull  concerning  the  matter,  given  on  the 
thirteenth  of  September,  1896,  in  which,  among 
other  things,  we  read : The  words  which  even  up 

to  the  present  time  have  been  considered,  speaking 
generally,  by  Anglicans  as  the  form  proper  to  the 
ordination  of  a priest,  namely,  “Receive  the  Holy 
Ghost,”  signify  very  indefinitely  the  Order  of  priest- 
hood, or  the  grace  and  power  of  it,  which  especially 
is  the  power  of  consecrating  and  offering  the  true 
Body  and  Blood  of  the  Lord.  ...  In  the  matter  of 
Episcopal  consecration,  the  case  is  similar  . . . 
with  this  fundamental  lack  of  form  is  joined  a de- 
fect of  intention  ...  if  a rite  be  changed  with  the 
manifest  intention,  so  that  another,  not  received  by 
the  Church,  may  be  introduced,  and  so  that  that 

19 


'IIY  ANGLICAN  ORDERS  ARE  NOT  VALID 

which  the  Church  does,  may  be  rejected,  and  which 
from  its  institution  pertains  to  the  nature  of  the 
sacrament,  then,  obviously,  not  only  is  the  inten- 
tion necessary  to  the  sacrament  lacking,  but  more, 
there  is  an  intention  opposed  to  and  repugnant  to 
the  sacrament.  . . . And  so,  agreeing  with  all  the 
decrees  of  preceding  Pontiffs  in  this  very  matter, 
and  confirming  fhem  fully,  and,  so  fo  say,  renewing 
fhem,  by  Our  authorify,  of  Our  own  accord,  with 
cerfain  knowledge.  We  pronounce  and  declare  that 
ordinations  according  to  the  Anglican  rite  have 
been  acts  wholly  invalid  and  that  they  are  com- 
pletely null.’”  (Leonis  Papae  XllL,  Allocutiones, 
Epistolse,  Constitutiones,  Aliaque  Acta  Praecipua, 
vol.  vi.,  “Apostolicse  Curas,”  pp.  205,  206,  passim.)^° 

All  of  these  points  may  be  correlated  thus ; An- 
glican orders  are  derived  from  Dr.  Matthew 
Parker,  who  was  consecrated  Archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury at  Lambeth,  on  December  7,  1559.  Dr. 
Parker  was  consecrated  by  William  Barlow,  who 
held  the  See  of  St.  David’s,  and  by  John  Hodgkins, 
a bishop  without  a See.  This  ceremony  was  held 
at  a time  and  place  which  are  disputed.  Assuming 
that  the  ceremony  was  held  as  stated,  and  assum- 
ing that  Barlow  was  a true  bishop  (an  assumption 
concerning  which  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that 
there  is  doubt),  there  is  more  than  grave  doubt  re- 

loH.  Hurter,  S.J.,  Theol.  Dogmat,  Compend.,  Tom.  IH.,  Tract.  IX., 
sec.  564,  4. 


20 


WHY  ANGLICAN  ORDERS  ARE  NOT  VALID 


garding  the  integrity  of  the  rite.  The  Prayer  Book 
of  Edward  VI.  excluded  all  that  pointed  to  sacri- 
fice. It  gave  prominence  to  preaching  as  the  chief 
function  of  the  Christian  minister.  The  delivery 
of  the  Bihle  instead  of  the  sacrificial  vessels  is  a 
symbol  of  the  intention  which  was  in  the  minds  of 
those  who  framed  the  rite.  The  words  “Receive 
the  Holy  Ghost”  are  not  directed  towards  the  recep- 
tion of  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  for  the  ministry 
of  sacrifice  and  absolution.  The  fact  that  the 
words,  “for  the  office  and  work  of  a priest,”  were 
added  later,  argues  the  fact  that  those  who  began 
to  use  the  new  form  felt  its  inadequacy.  As  the 
words  stand  in  the  first  draft,  tlie  purpose  of  the 
rite  is  not  specified.  In  addition  to  this,  the  Cath- 
olic bishops  who  had  apostatized  and  who  took 
part  in  Anglican  consecrations  were  not  the  conse- 
crators.  The  practice  of  the  Holy  See  for  cen- 
turies, beginning  with  the  cases  which  arose  soon 
after  Dr.  Parker’s  consecration,  show  that  at  no 
time  has  there  been  any  doubt  or  diversity  of  prac- 
tice with  regard  to  the  orders  received  from 
Parker. 

Viewed  from  another  angle,  the  conclusion  of  the 
matter  is  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  Anglican 
Schism  (1534-1547),  the  Catholic  form  of  ordina- 
tion was  retained.  Orders  conveyed  at  that  time 
were  valid.  This  does  not  mean  that  they  were 
licit,  because  as  soon  as  the  English  Church  broke 

21 


WHY  ANGLICAN  ORDERS  ARE  NOT  VALID 


away  from  the  Holy  See,  jurisdiction  was  lost. 
When  we  come  to  Parker’s  orders,  which  mark  the 
second  stage  in  the  schism,  showing  the  definite 
rebellion  from  the  Holy  See,  we  find  them  so  du- 
bious from  the  lack  of  intention,  as  well  as  form, 
that  the  question  becomes  hopeless.  At  the  insti- 
gation of  Archbishop  Cranmer,  who  derived  his 
jurisdiction  from  the  Crown,  we  find  that  a dis- 
tinctly new  form  of  ordination  was  instituted.  In 
this  new  form,  all  mention  of  sacrifice  was  omitted, 
and  from  it  were  deleted  all  words  which  could  be 
taken  definitely  to  state  the  intention  of  the  bishop 
to  confer  Orders  in  the  Catholic  sense.  The  altera- 
tion of  the  form  expressed  negatively  the  intention 
which  lay  behind  it.  To  elevate  the  prophetic  min- 
istry above  sacerdotal  functions  was  the  expressed 
(or  external)  intention,  if  words  mean  anything." 

The  words  of  the  form  used  under  Cranmer  are 
sufficient  proof  that  those  who  employed  them  had 
no  intention  of  carrying  on  a line  of  sacrificing 
priests.  Moreover,  the  fact  that  those  who  served 
as  consecrators,  lacked  all  jurisdiction,  makes  the 
matter  still  more  involved,  and  casts  on  the  orders 
so  conferred  an  additional  obscurity.  The  reason 
why  the  Catholic  Church  denies  the  validity  of  An- 
glican orders  is  that  in  the  Anglican  consecration  of 
bishops  there  have  been,  from  the  beginning,  de- 

iiConcerning  the  internal  or  subjective  intention,  the  Church  cannot 
judge. 


22 


WHY  ANGLICAN  ORDERS  ARE  NOT  VALID 


fects  in  form  and  intention  which  make  the  suscep- 
tion  of  Catholic  Orders  impossible  on  the  part  of 
those  ordained  according  to  such  a mutilated  or- 
dinal. The  form  at  no  time  designated  the  sacer- 
dotium,  or  priestly  function,  and  the  lack  of  exter- 
nal intention  is  evident  from  the  deliberate  exalta- 
tion of  the  office  of  preaching,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
the  words  directly  suppressing  the  words  giving 
priestly  power,  on  the  other  hand.  It  may  be  noted 
that  the  form  used  today  in  the  Anglican  Church 
dates  from  1661.  This  form  may  be  valid,  as  far 
as  words  are  concerned,  which  is  another  way  of 
saying  that  a Catholic  interpretation  may  be  put 
on  it  by  one  who  wills  to  find  it,  but  as  so  many  An- 
glican bishops  have  shown,  it  is  equally  patient  of 
an  interpretation  which  is  diametrically  opposed 
to  the  Catholic  teaching  with  regard  to  Holy  Order. 

Even  were  the  present  form  susceptible  of  a 
Catholic  interpretation,  it  would  not  change  the 
facts,  because  for  almost  a century  prior  to  the 
adoption  of  the  present  form,  the  form  used  was 
most  certainly  defective.  The  result  is  that  when 
the  form  promulgated  in  1661  came  into  being, 
there  were  no  bishops  to  transmit  orders,  even 
supposing  that  the  original  Anglican  bishops  had 
had  them.  Furthermore,  the  judgment  of  the 
Catholic  Church  is  that  even  the  present  form  is 
so  ambiguous  as  to  make  it  essentially  defective. 
The  fact  that  it  is  permissible  to  use  an  alternative 

23 


WHY  ANGLICAN  ORDERS  ARE  NOT  VALID 


form,  in  that  part  of  the  Anglican  rite  where  the 
power  to  give  absolution  is  said  to  be  conferred, 
makes  it  evident  that  the  intention  is  not  clear. 
Such  a variety  of  interpretations  exists  in  matters 
essential  to  the  integrity  of  the  sacrament,  that  one 
cannot  say  what  is  the  official  teaching  of  the  An- 
glican Church. 

Making  all  possible  allowance  for  the  chaotic 
condition  of  the  time  when  the  forms  were  drafted 
by  the  post-Reformation  English  bishops,  and  tak- 
ing into  consideration  the  diversity  in  teaching  and 
practice  which  has  resulted,  it  is  not  over-reaching 
the  truth  to  say  that  the  very  confusion  which  has 
always  existed  in  the  Church  of  England  is  suffi- 
cient proof  of  the  fact  that  whatever  else  Anglican 
orders  may  be,  they  are  not  Catholic  Orders.  For 
Catholics,  of  course,  the  matter  is  settled  definitely 
by  Pope  Leo’s  Encyclical. 

To  urge  that  the  words  “for  the  office  and  work 
of  a priest”  are  sufficiently  explicit  is  begging  the 
question.  What  is  the  office  and  work  of  a priest? 
Surely  a function  so  important  cannot  be  left  to 
the  imagination.  To  omit  the  statement  of  a func- 
tion so  important — a function  which  underlies  the 
whole  conception  of  the  Catholic  priesthood — is  at 
least  strange.  Up  to  the  time  of  the  Reformation, 
the  faith  of  England  was  Catholic,  and  no  one 
would  have  dreamed  of  the  possibility  of  leaving 
out  of  the  Ordinal  the  words  which  designate  the 

24 


WHY  ANGLICAN  ORDERS  ARE  NOT  VALID 


power  to  be  received  by  the  candidate  for  the 
priesthood.  It  would  seem  fair  to  say,  that  the 
omission  of  the  words  after  the  Reformation  can- 
not be  accidental;  rather,  the  fact  that  they  were 
deleted  shows  plainly  that  whatever  the  Reformers 
intended  to  do,  they  did  not  intend  to  propagate  the 
old  priesthood  having  the  power  to  offer  the  Sacri- 
fice of  the  Mass.  When  the  Anglican  Church  came 
into  being,  anchored  finally  in  the  harbor  of  a 
“National  Church”  which  appeared  after  the 
stormy  days  of  Henry’s  matrimonial  tornadoes,  it 
was  urgent,  if  ever  it  was,  to  define  plainly — so 
plainly  that  anyone  might  see  at  a distance,  with- 
out the  possibility  of  error,  the  functions  of  the 
ministers  who  were  to  take  over  the  functions  and 
works  of  the  priests  of  the  Catholic  Church,  which 
“religion  by  law  established”  replaced.  To  any- 
one who  is  looking  at  the  problem  in  the  light  of 
the  history  of  the  time,  it  is  evident  at  once  that  if 
the  Church  of  England  were  “the  same  Church  as 
it  was  before  the  Reformation,”  the  officials  of  the 
new  body  would  have  been  careful  to  state  exactly 
the  functions  of  their  chief  governors,  the  Anglican 
bishops,  under  the  King  (or  Queen). 

The  Catholic  Church  has  always  been  meticu- 
lously careful  to  define  precisely,  and  with  a nicety 
of  language  calculated  to  be  plain  to  the  simplest 
as  well  as  to  the  learned  man,  the  essential  parts  of 
every  sacrament,  its  matter  and  form,  the  purpose 

25 


WHY  ANGLICAN  ORDERS  ARE  NOT  VALID 


of  its  institution,  and  the  graces  to  be  obtained 
from  its  use.  This  is  not  the  case  with  the  An- 
glican Ordinal  at  any  stage  in  its  development. 
The  Catholic  Church  teaches  that  in  the  adminis- 
tration of  any  sacrament  nothing  can  be  left  to  the 
imagination.  The  purpose  of  the  sacrament  must 
be  stated  so  clearly  as  to  avoid  the  remotest  possi- 
bility of  doubt  or  misunderstanding.  This  is  not 
the  case  with  the  Anglican  Ordinal. 

Over  and  beyond  the  points  both  theological  and 
historical,  there  is  the  less  easily  defined  matter  of 
“practice.”  In  a question  so  vital  as  the  existence 
or  non-existence  of  Orders,  no  diversity  of  opinions 
is  possible.  Yet  in  the  Anglican  Church  we  find 
from  the  beginning  that  those  who  regard  the  mat- 
ter of  Orders  are  far  from  being  agreed  in  defining 
the  power  and  functions  of  those  ordained  in  the 
Anglican  Church.  The  fact  that  there  can  be  in 
the  same  church  men  who  differ  radically  and 
fundamentally  not  in  matters  of  opinion,  but  in 
questions  of  faith  so  great  as  whether  there  is  a 
priesthood  in  the  Anglican  Church,  or  only  an 
“Evangelical”  ministry,  shows  that  the  intention  is 
vague  in  the  minds  of  those  who  are  affected  by  it. 

The  reader  may  not  agree  with  the  position  of 
the  Catholic  Church.  That  is  his  privilege.  But 
it  must  be  said  that  the  reasons  for  the  denial  of 
the  validity  of  Anglican  orders  are  clear : the  lack 
of  the  proper  form  in  the  Anglican  Ordinal;  the 

26 


WHY  ANGLICAN  ORDERS  ARE  NOT  VALID 


defect  of  intention  (external)  on  the  part  of  An- 
glican bishops;  the  absence  of  jurisdiction  in  the 
whole  Anglican  body. 

It  seems  hard  to  think  that  anyone  who  examines 
the  question  with  an  open  mind  can  reach  a con- 
clusion different  from  that  of  the  Holy  Father.  To 
the  charity  of  the  reader  these  considerations  are 
committed.  The  writer  has  only  one  purpose: 
“That  they  all  may  be  one.” 


27 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


' I 'HE  short  list  of  books  given  here  is  chosen  with 
an  eye  to  enabling  the  reader  to  find  refer- 
ences readily  where  the  subject  is  treated  in  de- 
tail, and  with  more  elaboration  than  is  possible 
or  desirable  in  such  a bare  outline  as  is  found 
above. 

The  Sacraments,  by  Pohle-Preuss,  vol.  iv.  St.  Louis:  B. 
Herder  Book  Co. 

Outlines  of  Dogmatic  Theology,  by  S.  Hunter,  S.J.,  vol.  iii., 
pp.  381,  et  seq.  (This  valuable  work  is  out  of  print.) 

The  Catholic  Encyclopedia,  vol.  i.,  pp.  491-498. 

Salve  Mater,  by  F.  J.  Kinsman,  pp.  152-183.  New  York: 
Longmans,  Green  & Co. 

The  Price  of  Unity,  by  B.  W.  Maturin,  passim.  New  York: 
Longmans,  Green  & Co. 

Bishop  Gore's  Roman  Catholic  Claims,  by  Dom  Chapman, 
O.S.B.  New  York:  Longmans,  Green  & Co. 

The  Path  to  Rome,  by  Hilaire  Belloc.  New  York:  Long- 
mans, Green  & Go. 

A Spiritual  AEneid,  by  Ronald  Knox.  New  York:  Long- 
mans, Green  & Go. 

An  Awakening  and  What  Came  of  It,  by  James  Kent  Stone. 
New  York : Longmans,  Green  & Co. 

Beyond  the  Road  to  Rome,  by  Georgina  P.  Curtis.  St. 
Louis : B.  Herder  Book  Co. 

28 


WHY  ANGLICAN  ORDERS  ARE  NOT  VALID 

Apologia  pro  Vita  Sua,  by  John  Henry  Cardinal  Newman. 
New  York:  Longmans,  Green  & Co. 

Confessions  of  a Convert,  by  Mgr.  Hugh  Benson.  New 
York:  Longmans,  Green  & Co. 

Roads  to  Rome.  With  an  introduction  by  Cardinal 
Vaughan.  New  York:  Longmans,  Green  & Co. 

Back  to  Holy  Church,  by  Von  Ruville.  New  York:  Long- 
mans, Green  & Co. 


Roads  to  Rome,  by  G.  Raupert.  St.  Louis : B.  Herder  Book 
Co. 


Sur  les  Ordinations  Anglicanes,  by  A.  Boudinhon,  Paris, 
1894. 

The  Bull  on  Anglican  Orders,  by  S.  F.  Smith,  S.J.,  London, 
1897. 

Nouvelle  Theologie  Dogmatiqiie,  by  J.  Souben,  vol.  viii., 
pp.  77,  et  seq.,  Paris,  1905. 

Anglican  Ordinations:  Theology  of  Rome  and  Canterbury 
in  a Nutshell,  by  H.  C.  Semple,  S.J.,  New  York,  1906. 


More  Technical  Works. 


The  CathoUc  World 


THE  NATIONAL  CATHOLIC  MONTHLY 

ESTABLISHED  IN  1865 

A Magazine  for  Clergy  and  Laity 

jjEvery  Catholic  should  know  the  great  social  and  reli- 
gious problems  of  reconstruction. 

^The  Catholic  World  covers  these  problems:  states  the 
principles  that  guide  in  their  solution. 

If  Endorsed  by  the  Holy  Father. 

IfRecommerided  by  the  American  Hierarchy. 

Subscription  price,  $4.00  a year. 

Single  copies,  40  cents. 

Sample  Copy  Sent  on  Request 


THE  CATHOLIC  WORLD 
120  West  60th  Street 


New  York  City 


